In statements to the press, BP representatives have said that calculating the flow of oil is somehow "not relevant" or "might even detract" or "would not affect" the company's response to the disaster in the Gulf. Problem is, this directly contradicts what BP said in its own documents--drafted before the accident--about volume being "the priority issue" when responding to oil spills.

"When a spill has been verified and located, the priority issue will be to estimate and report the volume and measurements of the spill as soon as possible," Page 6 of the document reads.

After the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, it took four days before a spill was reported.

It took five more days before the Coast Guard and BP settled on a 5,000-barrels-a-day estimate of oil flow. They stuck to that number for the better part of the next month, even while scientists estimated the rate was several times higher. And when scientists offered to help measure the spill, as we noted, BP turned those offers down. Here's what a company spokesman told The New York Times at that time:

"The answer is no to that," a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. "We're not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It's not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort."

Speaking more broadly about the company's policy on measuring the leak, a spokesman, David H. Nicholas, said in an e-mail message that "the estimated rate of flow would not affect either the direction or scale of our response, which is the largest in history."

That's not what the company said in its Oil Spill Response Plan, which was approved by regulators at the Minerals Management Service in 2008.

When asked about the company's lack of interest in obtaining more accurate measurements of the Gulf gusher, another BP spokesman, Graham MacEwen, told me, "it's kind of a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't," because the company provided estimates that turned out to be "fairly inaccurate," but the discrepancy wasn't due to a lack of transparency.

"We've been totally open as much as we can with how much oil has been spilled so far," MacEwen said.

Safeguard the public interest

Republish This Story for Free

Thank you for your interest in republishing the story. You are are free republish it so long as you do the following:

You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, "yesterday" can be changed to "last week," and "Portland, Ore." to "Portland" or "here.")

If you’re republishing online, you have to link to us and to include all of the links from our story, as well as our PixelPing tag.

You can’t sell our material separately.

It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories.

You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually.